跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(44.222.64.76) 您好!臺灣時間:2024/06/16 04:30
字體大小: 字級放大   字級縮小   預設字形  
回查詢結果 :::

詳目顯示

我願授權國圖
: 
twitterline
研究生:黃雅戀
研究生(外文):HUANG, YA-LIEN
論文名稱:機器人程式設計課程對學童運算思維能力及 STEM 學習態度之影響
論文名稱(外文):The Effects of Robotic Programming Courses on Children’s Computational Thinking Ability and Attitude toward to STEM Learning
指導教授:崔夢萍崔夢萍引用關係
指導教授(外文):TSUEI, MENG-PING
口試委員:張循鋰賴阿福
口試委員(外文):CHANG, HSUN-LILAI, AH-FUR
口試日期:2019-06-24
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立臺北教育大學
系所名稱:教育傳播與科技研究所
學門:教育學門
學類:教育科技學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2019
畢業學年度:107
語文別:中文
論文頁數:90
中文關鍵詞:STEM運算思維機器人程式設計國小學生
外文關鍵詞:STEMComputational thinkingRobotic programming
DOI:10.6344/THE.NTUE.CICT.021.2019.F02
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:12
  • 點閱點閱:872
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:0
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:7
提升孩子資訊科技能力已成為全球教育改革的目標,各國開始重視STEM(Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics)教育,強調科學、科技、工程及數學跨科際整合學習;在資訊科技領域中,以「運算思維」為主軸進行課程改革,以培養孩子適應未來科技世界。
本研究目的為探討機器人融入國小電腦程式教學,對學生運算思維能力和STEM學習態度之影響。本研究採準實驗研究法,研究對象為臺北市某國小之五年級學生共69位,以班級區分為實驗組及控制組,實驗組為兩個班級共47人,控制組為一個班級共22人。實驗教學共10週,進行實驗之前,兩組先實施Scratch基礎課程以及STEM學習態度和運算思維前測,隨後,實驗組進行機器人融入程式設計教學之處遇,控制組則採用Scratch程式設計教學進行對照,兩組學生每週透過一節電腦課進行學習,每節課40分鐘,課程結束後,兩組再實施STEM學習態度和運算思維後測。資料蒐集與分析採量化資料輔以質性訪談,實驗組學生另以隨機抽樣方式進行半結構式訪談。兩組學生之「運算思維能力測驗」和「STEM學習態度量表」資料以成對樣本t檢定進行比較以及單因子共變數分析(One-way ANCOVA)、單變量雙因子共變數分析(Two-way ANCOVA)進行統計分析,研究結果如下:
一、在運算思維方面,不同教學策略對運算思維能力未達顯著差異。
(一)實驗組學生在運算思維能力測驗成績進步幅度具有顯著差異,控制組後測成績亦優於前
測成績,但進步分數未達顯著差異。
(二)以共變數分析結果顯示不同教學策略對學生運算思維能力測驗未達顯著差異。
二、不同教學策略和性別兩個變項之交互作用效果在運算思維能力測驗前後測表現之差異未達顯著
差異。
三、學生在STEM學習態度方面持正向態度
(一) 實驗組STEM學習態度進步具有顯著差異,控制組則未達顯著差異。
(二) 實驗組STEM學習態度顯著優於對照組學生,尤其在「科技與工程」分項方面。實驗組男
生之STEM學習態度顯著優於實驗組女生,尤其在「數學」分項的部份。
四、學生對於機器人融入程式設計課程之感受皆持正向態度,認為可促進STEM之探索及提升其學
習動機及興趣。
本研究結果支持以機器人融入程式設計課程,可激發學習者對STEM之探索及提升其學習動機及興趣,本研究可作為未來STEM教學參考。

Improving children's information technology abilities is the goal of global education reform. Many countries have begun to pay attention to STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) education, emphasizing interdisciplinary integration of science, technology, engineering and mathematics. In the field of information technology, curriculum reform is based on “computational thinking” to train children to adapt to the future technological world.
The purposes of this study were to explore the effects of applying robotic programming courses on computational thinking and STEM attitude of elemntary children. The quasi-experimental research was adopted. Both of students implemented Scratch foundation course for five weeks. The pre-test of STEM attitude scale and computing thinking test were also implemeted for students in the both groups. There were forty-seven students in the experimental group who learned robotic programming. Twenty-two students in the control groups who learned advanced course of Scratch. After experiment, the post-test for the same scale and test were also implemented. The pre-test and post-test scores were analyzied by paired t-tests、one-way ANCOVA、two-way ANCOVA. The results were as follows:
1.Students in the experimental group had significant improvement on the
computational thinking ability test scores. Students’ improvement in the
control group was did not show the significant differences.
2.There was no significant difference in the computing thinking ability of
different genders in different teaching modes.
3.Students have a positive attitude towards STEM learning attitudes
(1)Students in the experimental group had significant improvement on STEM
learning attitudes. Students’ improvement in the control group was did
not show the significant differences.
(2)In terms of the STEM learning attitude, students in the experimental
group showed the significantly better than that of the control group,
especially in the aspect of “Technology and Engineering”. Boys in the
experimental group performed significantly better than that of the
experimental group, especially in the aspect of “Mathematics”.
4.Robot programming courses help to improve students’ positive attitude
towards STEM learning.
The results of this study supported the integration of robotic programming courses to facilitate students’ exploration of STEM learning and enhance their motivation. This study can be used as a reference for future STEM instruction.

目錄
摘要 i
Abstract iii
目錄 v
表目錄 viii
圖目錄 ix
第一章 緒論 1
第一節 研究背景與動機 1
第二節 研究目的與待答問題 5
壹、研究目的 5
貳、待答問題 5
第三節 名詞解釋 6
壹、mBot機器人 6
貳、視覺化程式設計語言 6
參、運算思維 7
肆、STEM 7
第四節 研究範圍與限制 8
壹、研究範圍 8
貳、研究限制 8
第二章 文獻探討 9
第一節 機器人教育 9
壹、機器人課程 9
貳、機器人教學相關研究 10
第二節 視覺化程式設計語言 12
壹、視覺化程式設計語言 12
貳、程式設計相關研究 19
第三節 運算思維 21
壹、運算思維定義 21
貳、Bebras 國際運算思維挑戰賽 23
參、運算思維相關研究 25
第四節 STEM 27
壹、STEM 教學 27
貳、STEM 教學相關研究 29
第三章 研究方法 31
第一節 研究設計與架構 31
第二節 研究對象 34
第三節 研究工具 35
壹、視覺化程式設計軟體 35
貳、mBot機器人 35
參、運算思維測驗 35
肆、STEM學習態度量表 36
伍、mBot程式設計半結構式訪談問卷 36
第四節 研究實施步驟 37
壹、前導課程─實施程式基礎操作教學 37
貳、研究實施步驟 39
第五節 資料分析 43
壹、量化資料 43
貳、質化資料 43
第四章 研究結果與討論 45
第一節 不同教學策略對運算思維能力之影響 45
第二節 不同組別男女學童在運算思維能力之分析 47
第三節 不同教學策略對學生在STEM學習態度之影響 49
第四節 實驗組男、女生在STEM學習態度之差異 53
第五節 學生訪談結果 57
壹、學生一致認為mBot機器人課程有趣 57
貳、機器人程式設計雖具難度,但學生仍保持高度學習興趣 58
參、機器人學習程式設計能幫助學生理解程式概念 58
肆、學生對STEM相關領域具正向度態度 59
第六節 討論 61
壹、程式設計課程對運算思維能力之影響 61
貳、機器人程式設計課程對STEM學習態度之影響 63
第五章 結論與建議 67
第一節 結論 67
第二節 建議 68
參考文獻 69
附錄一 運算思維能力測驗 77
附錄二 STEM學習態度量表 89
附錄三 mBot程式設計半結構訪談大網 90






表目錄
表2-2-2 mBlock機器人模組 18
表2-3-1 參與對象分組表 25
表2-3-2 計分說明表 25
表3-1-1 研究設計模式 32
表3-2-1 研究對象 34
表3-4-1 Scratch前導課程教學-5週 37
表3-4-2 實驗組與控制組教學流程比較表 39
表3-4-3 實驗組教學課程表 40
表3-4-4 控制組教學課程表 41
表3-5-1 編碼說明 43
表4-1-1 實驗組與控制組運算思維能力測驗前後測之敘述統計與組內t檢定 46
表4-1-2 實驗組與控制組學生運算思維能力測驗共變數分析 46
表4-2-1 實驗組與控制組不同性別在運算思維能力測驗之平均數及標準差 47
表4-2-2 運算思維能力測驗之二因子共變數分析摘要表 48
表4-3-1 實驗組與控制組學生在STEM學習態度量表前後測分數之組內t檢定 49
表4-3-2 實驗組與控制組學生在STEM學習態度量表共變數分析摘要表 50
表4-3-3 實驗組與控制組學生在STEM學習態度分項分數之描述統計 51
表4-3-4 實驗組與控制組學生在各分項之共變數分析摘要表 52
表4-4-1 實驗組男、女學童在STEM學習態度量表前後測分數之組內t檢定 53
表4-4-2 實驗組男、女學童在STEM學習態度量表共變數分析摘要表 54
表4-4-3 實驗組男、女學童在STEM學習態度分項分數之平均數與標準差 55
表4-4-4 實驗組男、女學童在各分項之共變數分析摘要表 56
表4-5-1 受訪學生資料表 57

圖目錄
圖2-2-1 幼稚園學習取向 13
圖2-2-4 Scratch與mBlock圖示LOGO 17
圖2-2-3 Scratch與mBlock主程式預設主角 17
圖2-2-4 Scratch與mBlock程式指令積木種類比較 18
圖3-3-1 參與國家及人數統計表 23


吳舒民(2017)。採用鷹架導引系統提升國小學童運算思維能力之研究(未出版碩士論文)。國立臺南大學數位學習科技學系數位學習科技碩士在職專班,台南市。
范斯淳、游光昭(2016)。科技教育融入 STEM 課程的核心價值與實踐。教育科學研究期刊,61(2),153-183。
呂永鈞(2015)。藉由國小五年級學生學習程式設計探究運算思維能力在 Bebras 測驗上的表現(未出版碩士論文)。臺灣大學電信工程學研究所,臺北市。
汪殿杰、巫鍵志、王意蘭、吳致娟(2014)。強調動手實作的科技教育-以臺北市立大同高中為例。中等教育,65(4),141-151。
林育慈、吳正己(2016)。運算思維與中小學資訊科技課程。國家教育研究院教育脈動電子期刊,201608(6)取自http://pulse.naer.edu.tw/Home/Content/02287aac-dc26-4ad4-b87e-2881e942dc16
林奕懷(2018)。考量國小學童思考風格之教學策略以提升運算思維成效之研究(未出版碩士論文)。國立臺南大學數位學習科技學系,台南市。
林建良、黃台珠、莊雪華、趙大衛(2013)。發展一延伸性CIPP課程評鑑模式運用於高瞻計畫課程—以高中機器人課程為例。科學教育學刊,21(3), 237-261。
林美娟(2008)。國中小實施程式設計教學之適切性探究。中等教育,59(4),58-77。
林湘庭(2018)。將Scratch結合樂高機器人提升小學生運算思維能力之研究(未出版碩士論文)。中原大學資訊管理研究所,桃園縣。
柳棟,吳俊杰,謝作如,沈涓(2013)。STEM、STEAM 課程與可能的實踐路線。中小學訊息技術雜誌,6,39-41。
馬岳琳、程晏鈴(2016)。數位╳教育,贏的起點。天下雜誌,610。取自https://www.cw.com.tw/article/article.action?id=5079253。
國家教育研究院電子報(2013)。歐巴馬2014年STEM國家人才培育策略。國家教育研究院國際教育訊息電子報,取自fepaper.naer.edu.tw/print.php?edm_no=35&content_no=1883。
國家教育研究院電子報(2016)。新課綱「程式設計」,學邏輯解問題,國家教育研究院電子報,取自epaper.naer.edu.tw/index.php?edm_no=134&content_no=2672&fbclid=IwAR08DkmydKrntvrDrbcAO3yMGsUmRp4PMzHlu_TzI5_1AeoWQgL3juknE0Y。
張永康(2010)。機器人創作活動對國小高年級學生科學技術創造能力之影響(未出版碩士論文)。國立臺北教育大學,臺北市。
教育部(2016)。2016第三屆資訊國力發展論壇報告。教育部資通訊軟體創新人才計畫,未出版。https://www.itsa.org.tw/wp-content/
教育部(2018)。十二年國民基本教育課程綱要-科技領域。國家教育研究院,取自www.naer.edu.tw/files/11-1000-639.php。
陳怡靜、張基成(2015)。兩岸機器人教育的現況與發展。中等教育,66(3),37-59。
游東林(2016)。Scratch程式對國小四年級學童邏輯推理能力與問題解決能力影響之研究(未出版碩士論文)。臺北市立大學應用物理暨化學系,臺北市。
黃玉如(2016)。探討自造者課程對國小五年級學生運算思維態度之助益 ─以Webduino程式設計為例(未出版碩士論文)。國立高雄師範大學軟體工程與管理學系,高雄市。
劉正吉(2011)。以Scratch同儕程式設計提升學童問題解決能力之探究(未出版碩士論文)。國立新竹教育大學數位學習科技研究所,新竹市。
羅希哲、陳柏豪、石儒居、蔡華齡、蔡慧音(2009)。STEM 整合式教學法在國民中學自然與生活科技領域之研究。人文社會科學研究,3(3),42-66。
Atmatzidou, S., & Demetriadis, S. (2016). Advancing students' computational thinking skills through educational robotics: A study on age and gender relevant differences. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 75, 661-670. doi:10.1016/j.robot.2015.10.008
Australian Curriculum, Assessment, Reporting Authority (ACARA). (2013). Draft Australian curriculum technologies. Retrieved from http://docs.acara.edu.au/resources/Draft_Australian_Curriculum_Technologies_-_Consultation_Report_-_August_2013.pdf
Baldwin, L. P., & Kuljis, J. (2001). Learning programming using program visualization techniques. In D. Eileen (Ed.), Proceedings of the 34th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. doi:10.1109/HICSS.2001.926232
Becker, K., & Park, K. (2011). Effect of integrative approaches among science, technology, engineering and mathematics (stem) subjects on students’ learning: A Preliminary Meta-Analysis. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Research, 12, 23-37.
Beer, R. D., Chiel, H. J., & Drushel, R. F. (1999). Using autonomous robotics to teach science and engineering. Communications of the ACM, 42(6), 85-92.
Brand B., Collver M., & Kasarda M. (2008). Motivating students with robotics. The Science Teacher, 75(4), 44-49
Brennan, K., & Resnick, M. (2012). New frameworks for studying and assessing the development of computational thinking. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association. Canada: British Columbia.
Casad, B. J., & Jawaharlal, M. (2012). Learning through guided discovery: An engaging approach to K-12 STEM education. Paper presented at 2012 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, San Antonio, Texas.
Chi, H., & Jain, H. (2011). Teaching computing to STEM students via visualization tools. Procedia Computer Science, 4, 1937-1943.
Connor, K., A., Ferri, B., & Meehan, K. (2013). Models of mobile hands-on STEM education. Paper presented at the 2013 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference and Exposition, Kaohsiung, TW.
CSTA. (2011). CSTA K–12 computer science standards. The ACM K-12 Education Task Force. Retrieved from csteachers.org website: www.csteachers.org/page/standards
Dagdilelis, V., Sartatzemi, M. & Kagani, K. (2005). Teaching with robots in secondary schools: Some new and not-so-new pedagogical problems. Paper presented at the Fifth IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies. 757-761.
Dagiene, V., & Stupuriene, G. (2014). Informatics education based on solving attractive tasks through a contest. Commentarii informaticae didacticae, 7, 97-115
Dagiene, V., & Stupuriene, G. (2016). Bebras-a sustainable community building model for the concept based learning of informatics and computational thinking. Informatics in Education. 15(1), 25–44.
Department for Education in England (2013). National curriculum in England: Computing programmes of study. Retrieved from gov.uk website: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-curriculum-in-england-computing-programmes-of-study
Du Boulay, B. (1989). Some difficulties of learning to program. In E. Soloway and J. Sprohrer(Eds.), Studying the Navice Programmer. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Eguchi, A. (2016). RoboCupJunior for promoting STEM education, 21st century skills, and technological advancement through robotics competition. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 75, 692-699.
Friday Institute for Educational Innovation. (2012). Upper elementary school student attitudes toward STEM survey. Author, Raleigh
Google. (2015). Exploring Computational Thinking. Retrieved from https://edu.google.com/resources/programs/exploring-computational-thinking/#!ct-overview.
Henderson, P., Cortina, T., Hazzan, O., & Wing, J. (2007). Computational thinking. ACM SIGSCE Bullet. 39(1), 195-196.
Kafai, Y., & Resnick, M. (1996). Constructionism in practice: Designing, thinking, and learning in a digital world. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Kalas, I., & Tomcsanyiova, M. (2009). Students’ attitude to programming in modern informatics. Education and Technology for a Better World, 127-135.
Ke, F. (2013). Computer-game-based tutoring for mathematics learning. Computers & Education, 60(1), 448-457.
Kopcha, T. J., McGregor, J., Shin, S., Qian, Y., Choi, J., Hill, R., ..., Choi, I. (2017). Developing an integrative STEM curriculum for robotics education through educational design research. Journal of Formative Design in Learning, 1, 31-44.
Kurebayashi, S., Kamada, T., & Kanemune, S. (2006). Learning computer programming with autonomous robots. Computer Science, 4226, 138-149.
Lye, S. Y., & Koh, J. H. L. (2014). Review on teaching and learning of computational thinking through programming: What is next for K-12? Computers in Human Behavior, 41, 51-61. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.09.012
Mataric, M., Koenig, N., & Feil-Seifer, D. (2007). Materials for enabling hands-on robotics and STEM education. AAAI Spring Symposium on Robots and Robot Venues: Resources for AI Education, Stanford, CA.
McNerney, T. S. (2004). From turtles to tangible programming bricks: explorations in physical language design. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 8(5), 326-337.
Murillo, A. C., Mosteo, A. R., Castellanos, J. A., & Montano, L. (2011). A practical mobile robotics engineering course using LEGO Mindstorms. Research and Education in Robotics, 221-235.
National Research Council (2010). Exploring the intersection of science education and 2lst century skills: A workshop summary. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2006). Assessing scientific, reading and mathematical literacy: A framework for PISA 2006. Paris: OECD.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2015). The ABC of Gender Equality in Education: Aptitude, Behaviour, Confidence. Retrieved from https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/pisa_19963777.
Pinnell, M., Rowly, J.,Preiss, S., Franco, S., Blust, R., & Beach, R. (2013). Bridging the gap between engineering design and PK-12 curriculum development through the use of the STEM education quality framework. Journal of STEM Education, 14, 28-35.
Psycharis, S. (2013). Examining the effect of the computational models on learning performance, scientific reasoning, epistemic beliefs and argumentation: Animplication for the STEM agenda. Computers & Education, 68, 253-265. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2013.05.015.
Resnick, M. (2007, June). All I really need to know (about creative thinking) I learned (by studying how children learn) in kindergarten. Paper presented at the 6th ACM SIGCHI conference on Creativity & cognition, Washington, DC.
Resnick, M., Maloney, J., Monroy-Hernandez, A., Rusk, N., Eastmond, E., Brennan, K., & Kafai, Y. (2009). Scratch: Programming for all. Communications of the ACM, 52, 60-67.
Kim, S. H., & Jeon, J. W. (2006). Educating c language using LEGO Mindstorms robotic invention system 2.0. Paper presented at the 2006 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Orlando, FL.
The White House. (2012). President Obama announces plans for a new, national corps to recognize and reward leading educators in science, technology, engineering, and math. Retrieved from obamawhitehouse website: obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2012/07/17/president-obama-announces-plans-new-national-corps-recognize-and-reward-
The White House. (2016). Computer Science For All. Retrieved from obamawhitehouse website: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2016/01/30/computer-science-all
Tucker, A., Seehorn, D., Carey, S., Moix, D., Fuschetto, B., Lee, I., Verno, A. (2011). CSTA K-12 Computer Science Standards Revised 2011. New York, NY: ACM.
USDE (2009). American recovery and reinvestment act, ARRA. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved January 5, 2010, from http://www.ed.gov/policy/gen/leg/recovery/index.html
Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33-35. doi:10.1145/1118178.1118215
Wing, J. M. (2011). Computational thinking: What and why. Retrieved from http://www.cs.cmu.edu/link/research-notebook-computational-thinking-what-and-why.
World Economic Forum. (2016). The future of jobs and skills. Retrieve from http://reports.weforum.org/future-of-jobs-2016/chapter-1-the-future-of-jobs-and-skills/
Yildirim, B., & Altun, Y. (2015). Investigating the effect of STEM education and engineering applications on science laboratory lectures. El-Cezeri Journal of Science and Engineering, 2(2), 28-40. 

QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
無相關期刊